The arrest of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and national security, exploring how preventive detention laws interact with democratic rights in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
SRINAGAR: The Right to Protest, enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, is a pillar of democracy that empowers citizens to express dissent and seek accountability. Yet this freedom comes with limits in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, and national security, a tension now playing out in Ladakh’s statehood movement.
After the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, Ladakh was carved out as a Union Territory without legislative powers, sparking fears over political representation, tribal identity, and ecological protection. Over time, these concerns have evolved into calls for statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, which would grant autonomy over land, culture, and resources. However, Ladakh’s strategic position bordering China and Pakistan makes it highly sensitive, complicating the exercise of democratic protest.
The recent clashes in Leh, which left four people dead and over 80 injured, have underscored this delicate balance between democratic rights and security imperatives. Supporters argue that autonomy would safeguard local interests and representation for a region where over 97% of residents are Scheduled Tribes. Critics, however, warn that extending Sixth Schedule protections or granting statehood could disrupt administrative and security coordination in this frontier region and require constitutional changes.
Amid this unrest, activist Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA) has intensified the debate. Wangchuk, who led peaceful protests for Ladakh’s rights, was arrested after violence erupted during demonstrations. His wife, Gitanjali Angmo, has moved the Supreme Court challenging what she calls a politically motivated crackdown, while authorities have also revoked his NGO’s FCRA licence.
Wangchuk’s case reflects a broader constitutional dilemma: how to protect the right to protest while maintaining national security in a strategically critical region. Resolving this tension will require dialogue, trust-building, and governance models that uphold both democratic expression and territorial integrity.
The case of Sonam Wangchuk
Sonam Wangchuk is a noted Ladakhi educator-activist, known for his work in the Himalayan region. On 26 September 2025, he was arrested by the Ladakh police under the National Security Act, following protests in Leh that left four protesters dead and dozens injured.
The administration’s narrative
Wangchuk was allegedly involved in “inciting violent unrest” and was part of a “conspiracy” to disturb the peace of the Union Territory of Ladakh. He was apparently taken into custody right before an online press conference. The mobile internet in Leh was also suspended as a “precautionary measure”.
Meanwhile, the administration revoked his NGO’s FCRA licence, citing “serious discrepancies” and alleged fund transfers “against national interest”. (reported in news coverage).
Wangchuk’s side
His supporters say the charges are baseless, that the protests were a reflection of long-standing demands (statehood/Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh) and that the law is being used to clamp down on dissent.
Key sections
- Section 1: Short title & extent
Names the Act and says it applies to all India (except Jammu & Kashmir as originally framed). - Section 2: Definitions
Defines “appropriate Government”, “detention order”, “foreigner”, etc. These definitions determine who can issue orders and who can be detained. - Section 3: Power to make orders detaining certain persons (the core provision)
- Central or State Government may detain a person if satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent them acting in a manner prejudicial to:
(a) defence of India; (b) relations with foreign powers; (c) security of India; (d) security of the State; (e) maintenance of public order; or (f) maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. - It also allows detaining foreigners to regulate their presence or make arrangements for expulsion.
- District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police can act under the Act for limited periods when the State Government so authorises them.
- Central or State Government may detain a person if satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent them acting in a manner prejudicial to:
- Section 4: Execution of detention orders
A detention order may be executed anywhere in India, in the manner of executing arrest warrants under CrPC. - Section 5 & 5A: Place/conditions of detention; severability of grounds
Government can decide the place and conditions of detention, and can move detainees between places. Section 5A says if an order relies on multiple grounds, the invalidity of one ground need not invalidate the whole order (grounds are severable). - Section 6: Certain technical defects won’t invalidate the order
The Act protects detention orders from being declared invalid merely because they fall outside territorial jurisdiction, etc. (subject to specifics). - Section 7: Powers in relation to absconding persons
If a detained person has absconded, the Government can notify them to appear and can use CrPC provisions in relation to their property, etc. Non-compliance can be an offence. - Section 8: Disclosure of grounds of detention & right to representation
The authority must communicate to the detained person the grounds for detention “as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days” (extended to fifteen days in exceptional circumstances). The detainee gets earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order. However, the authority may withhold facts it considers against public interest or security. This is a central procedural safeguard. - Sections 9–12: Advisory Boards (independent review)
- Section 9: The Government must constitute Advisory Boards (usually headed by a judge or retired judge).
- Section 10: Within three weeks the Government places the grounds and the detainee’s representation before the Advisory Board.
- Section 11–12: Advisory Board hears and reports its opinion; based on the report the Government must either confirm, modify or revoke the detention. This provides a quasi-judicial review (not a full trial).
- Section 13: Maximum period of detention
If a detention order is confirmed by the Advisory Board, the maximum period of detention is 12 months from date of detention. The Government may revoke earlier. - Section 14 / 14A: Revocation & special cases
Government can revoke or modify detention orders at any time. Section 14A deals with circumstances where a person may be detained longer than three months without obtaining Advisory Board opinion (specific limited circumstances). - Section 15: Temporary release
Allows temporary release of detained persons under conditions set by the authority. - Section 16: Protection for action taken in good faith
Official acts under the Act are protected from legal suits if done in good faith. - Section 17–18: Non-application with respect to State laws; repeal & saving
What the government claims
The government and Ladakh administration assert that:
- The protests in Leh turned violent (four killed, many injured) and required a strong response.
- Wangchuk allegedly made “provocative statements” and was part of a conspiracy to destabilise public order in Ladakh.
- Ensuring the “maintenance of public order” and “national security” in a sensitive union territory (with border and strategic concerns) justifies preventive action.
- Procedural safeguards under the NSA have been followed (though this is contested). In legal filings, the administration told the Supreme Court that due process was used.
Thus, the central claims, when speech acts (or alleged speech acts) contribute to serious unrest or threaten public order or security, the state may invoke heavy-handed tools like the NSA to pre-empt further damage.
What is the NSA and how does it work
The National Security Act, 1980, is a preventive detention law enacted by the Indian Parliament to allow the state (central or state government) to detain a person without trial for certain specified purposes.
Key features of the NSA:
- It empowers the government to detain a person if the government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for reasons such as: the security of India, relations with foreign countries, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
- The Act extends to the whole of India (though originally it did not apply in Jammu & Kashmir before its reorganisation) and has multiple sections giving the procedure.
- Under Section 3 of the Act, detention orders can be made.
- Though a trial is not required immediately, an advisory board (comprising members who have held judicial office) must examine the detention within a specified period.
- Criticism: the law gives the executive wide latitude, is preventive rather than punitive, and carries the risk of misuse.
Free speech and expression: Constitutional framework
What the Constitution says
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression.
- However, this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows the state to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of free speech and expression in the interests of, inter alia, sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality.
- Thus, the right to free speech is qualified: you may speak and publish, but state laws may restrict that speech if one of the justifiable grounds is reached, and the restriction is “reasonable”.
Judicial interpretations
- The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy: e.g., freedom to receive and impart information is part of the right.
- The Court has emphasized that restrictions must be carefully scrutinised. For example, a 2023 Constitution Bench held that freedom of speech cannot be restricted on grounds outside Article 19(2).
- Some scholars point out that preventive detention laws or vague laws may chill free expression.
ALSO READ: “Law Should Build Bridges, Not Walls”: Justice Surya Kant
Can the NSA override free speech? And in this case: how?
NSA vs Free Speech
- On one hand, the NSA is a tool aimed at pre-emptive detention when the state deems someone’s actions or speech (or likely speech) may threaten national security or public order.
- On the other hand, free speech is protected, but subject to restrictions, including “security of the state” and “public order” grounds under Article 19(2). So conceptually, yes: if a speech act genuinely threatens public order or security, the state may restrict or act against it, including preventive detention under the NSA.
- But the threshold is high. The state must show that the person’s actions or speech are necessary to detain to prevent harm (i.e., it cannot be used for mere dissent or peaceful protest). There is potential tension because preventive detention bypasses the normal trial process and may chill speech. The scholarship flags misuse in the guise of “security”.
- The jurisprudence emphasises that speech cannot be clipped simply because it is critical of government, the restriction must meet one of the Article 19(2) grounds, and be reasonable and proportionate. So the question is whether the detention under the NSA is being used as a “restriction” within the permissible constitutional framework, or whether it goes beyond what is constitutionally acceptable.
Applying to the Wangchuk case
Here are the factors in this specific case:
- Nature of speech/activism: Wangchuk was organising and supporting protests demanding statehood and special status (Sixth Schedule) for Ladakh. That is political speech and dissent — typically protected under freedom of expression.
- State’s claim of threat: The administration contends that the protests turned violent (four killed) and that Wangchuk’s statements incited unrest in a sensitive region. If true, the “public order” or “security of the state” grounds might be triggered. The government says this was a “conspiracy” to throw the Union territory into turmoil.
- Preventive detention under the NSA: By invoking the NSA, the state is not charging him under a usual criminal law for a defined offence, but detaining him to prevent future harm. That raises a challenge: is the threshold of “necessary to prevent” met, or is this more an act of silencing dissent? The scholarship warns of the misuse of such laws in the context of dissent.
- Free speech implications: Wangchuk was about to hold a press conference; mobile internet was suspended; his NGO’s licence was cancelled; he was transferred far from the region; these raise concerns of speech disruption and chilling effect.
- Proportionality, transparency and safeguards: The constitution demands that restrictions (including preventive detention) must be transparent, must allow representation, and must have review. In detention cases under the NSA, the person must be informed of the grounds and have representation before an Advisory Board. If those are missing or opaque, the free speech impact is more severe. For example, in earlier jurisprudence, a detention was struck down because the grounds were illusory.
ALSO READ: ‘Marriage Should Be Based on Dignity, Equality, and Partnership’: Justice Surya Kant
Has the NSA overridden free speech in this case?
- It appears that in practice, the NSA is being used to detain an activist engaged in political dissent. That suggests an override of free speech in the sense that the usual protections for speech are being supplemented by a preventive detention regime. The test is whether this override is constitutionally valid:
- If Wangchuk’s speech actually posed a real, imminent danger to public order or security, the state’s action might fall within permissible restrictions under Article 19(2).
- If, however, the detention is primarily aimed at suppressing dissent or making an example, then the use of NSA may be disproportionate and undermine free speech.
Given the facts publicly available, many observers argue that the threshold of a genuine threat may not have been clearly demonstrated and that invoking the NSA in a protest context raises concerns of a chilling effect on free expression. The fact that internet access was suspended, his NGO’s licence revoked, and speech disrupted strengthens the view that the state is using a heavy tool against speech.
Therefore, yes, the NSA can override free speech, but that does not guarantee legitimacy; each case must pass the constitutional test of restriction being reasonable, targeted and proportional. In this case, the invocation raises serious questions about whether the free speech rights are being unduly curtailed rather than appropriately regulated.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sonam Wangchuk
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Ladakh’s Statehood Movement